Neoliberal Authoritarianism in the Middle East

[Jack V Savage]

I'm gonna bump this thread with a question to @Jack V Savage but of course anyone else can respond if they want.

Given that pushing forward these policies of structural adjustment and privatization reliably lead to the entrenchment of the autocratic elite and wider wealth inequality what kinds of policies could the IMF recommend to such countries that would actually produce growth? The old Arab socialist social contract of cheap bread and good public jobs for political acquiescence to autocracy seems unsustainable for countries like Egypt and Tunisia which don't have the oil resources to support those of policies unlike the GCC countries which can so is there a third option?

Responding because you asked me directly and I respect you, but I have nothing to say here. Seems like a really hard question, and I don't know anywhere near enough to take a stab at an answer.

 

[Trotsky]

Isn't the thread title misleading? It's about anti-"neoliberal" authoritarianism.

The usage of "neoliberal," although not entirely inappropriate, seems like a forced fit for what's really austerity policy, which is currently most visibly attached to neoliberalism in the West. I understand the neoliberal principle that an authoritarian might adapt--in that one's own wealth must continue to point north at the expense of other, the poor, etc.--but I agree that it's kind of weird proposition to allocate austerity away from the logic of the market and still call it neoliberalism. Using that definition, fiefdoms and ancient empires were neoliberals constantly gobbling each other up.

 

[lecter]

Leoniberal

 

[Islam Imamate]

The thing is that even if there was no loan coming in, these measures are just basic sense.

And subsidies, for subsidies sake aren't worth it, i mean USD 21 cent gas is ridiculous, no matter how you spin it.

Sure there are sometimes measures that are unpopular but also the right one long term. But in this case these supposed long term benefits aren't being realized, instead these policies just multiply the suffering. Now the masses are not only poorer but the repressive arm of the state is enriched.

 

[Rod1]

Sure there are sometimes measures that are unpopular but also the right one long term. But in this case these supposed long term benefits aren't being realized, instead these policies just multiply the suffering. Now the masses are not only poorer but the repressive arm of the state is enriched.

Actually they are being realized, what do you think would happen when the government runs out of funds to subsidize oil.

Ill tell you, it starts with "V" and ends with "enezuela".

The article points out that Egypt is forced into drastic measures not because of the IMF, but because Saudi Arabia stopped sending aid to Egypt, so whether it starts now, or a year down the road, the Egyptian government is going to run out of money.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Actually they are being realized, what do you think would happen when the government runs out of funds to subsidize oil.

Ill tell you, it starts with "V" and ends with "enezuela".

What I'm saying is the Middle East example flies in the face of the argument that these economic liberalization policies lead to political liberalization. In fact they lead to the opposite.

The article points out that Egypt is forced into drastic measures not because of the IMF, but because Saudi Arabia stopped sending aid to Egypt, so whether it starts now, or a year down the road, the Egyptian government is going to run out of money.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Egypt is going to the IMF because the Saudi money stopped coming but the IMF loan is contingent on very similar policies that failed the first time around.

 

[Rod1]

What I'm saying is the Middle East example flies in the face of the argument that these economic liberalization policies lead to political liberalization. In fact they lead to the opposite.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. Egypt is going to the IMF because the Saudi money stopped coming but the IMF loan is contingent on very similar policies that failed the first time around.

Because Saudi Arabia was giving aid. IMF gives loans.

When you go to a bank for a business loan you kinda need to prove that your business will be able to payback, if you need a loan so that you can sell IMPORTED gas at lower than market prices, its not really that far-fetched to ask of Egypt to keep its finances clean enough so that they can payback.

 

[fallable]

I'm gonna bump this thread with a question to @Jack V Savage but of course anyone else can respond if they want.

Given that pushing forward these policies of structural adjustment and privatization reliably lead to the entrenchment of the autocratic elite and wider wealth inequality what kinds of policies could the IMF recommend to such countries that would actually produce growth? The old Arab socialist social contract of cheap bread and good public jobs for political acquiescence to autocracy seems unsustainable for countries like Egypt and Tunisia which don't have the oil resources to support those of policies unlike the GCC countries which can so is there a third option?

I don't have an answer to your question, but with regards to Egypt, if they could stabilize their Nation and snuff out terrorism, they could rebuild their tourism industry which has suffered of late.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Because Saudi Arabia was giving aid. IMF gives loans.

When you go to a bank for a business loan you kinda need to prove that your business will be able to payback, if you need a loan so that you can sell IMPORTED gas at lower than market prices, its not really that far-fetched to ask of Egypt to keep its finances clean enough so that they can payback.

I get that but very similar policies failed because of the authoritarian context as even the IMF itself admitted.

 

[Rod1]

I get that but very similar policies failed because of the authoritarian context as even the IMF itself admitted.

Yes, but in this case the loan isnt so that Egypt can privatize industry and other neoliberal policies which benefit crony capitalists.

This one is literally so that Egypt can properly transition to sustainable finances and avoid an stagflation supply-shock from the lack of Saudi aid.

What i am saying is that the IMF is only asking the Egyptians to avoid the inevitable.

If something bad happens its probably because they based their economy on Saudi welfare.